5.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1950 respectively.
6.  F and M are the father and the mother of D, a girl born on 10 June 1984. On 4 June 1991 she was admitted to the child psychiatric department of a hospital for a six-week period for observation. During the observation she mentioned that she had played “finger games” with her father. According to the parents, D had referred to hobby crafts. It appears that the psychologist and the social welfare authorities interpreted this as sexual petting.
7.  D received treatment at the hospital from 5 August 1991 to 12 August 1994, following which she went to live in a substitute family. The applicants were allegedly refused access to D during her hospitalisation.
8.  Meanwhile, on 18 November 1991 the Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) decided to place D in public care on account of a suspicion that she had been sexually abused. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the public care decision in the administrative courts. It appears that the Supreme Administrative Court rendered its decision in 1995.
9.  The social welfare officials allegedly told the applicants that the girl would return to live with them if they assumed responsibility for the situation and acknowledged the abuse. Although the applicant father was allegedly not guilty of any abuse, on 23 October 1991, he admitted the abuse to the social welfare officials and a psychiatrist in order to have D return home. He did not describe the nature of the abuse. On 7 May 1992 he withdrew his admission as he felt that he could not bear having this lie on his conscience for the rest of his life.
10.  In 1995 the applicants lodged an application with a view to having the public care terminated. In the course of those proceedings, on 21 March 1995, the Social Welfare Board reported to the police the alleged sexual abuse committed in 1990-91. As to the fact that several years had passed since the initial suspicion had arisen, the Board explained that it had refrained from taking criminal action in order to afford the applicants an opportunity to seek therapy. If the therapy had proved successful, the public care could have been terminated and D could have returned to live with the applicants. The Board apparently considered that the applicants' therapy had proved unsuccessful.
11.  As noted above, the alleged sexual abuse was reported on 21 March 1995. On 19 October 1995 the applicant father was questioned by the police. He denied any abuse. D, now aged 11, was not questioned during the pre-trial investigation. Nor was the father asked whether he wished to have questions put to the girl. The investigation was completed on 17 February 1997.
12.  On 27 January 1998 the public prosecutor brought charges against the father for sexual abuse of a minor and for sexual intercourse with a descendant (lapseen kohdistuva haureus ja sukurutsa jälkeläisen kanssa, otukt med barn och blodskam med avkomling).
13.  In its written submission of 5 June 1998 to the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) the Social Welfare Board claimed compensation on behalf of D. It also submitted a written medical opinion by Dr S.V., a psychiatrist, according to which the hearing of D before the court would harm her development. It appears that Dr S.V. had not seen D since 1992 or 1993.
14.  On 26 August 1998 the applicant father was summoned to the District Court hearing. On 17 September 1998 he submitted his written submission, denying the charges. He criticised the Social Welfare Board for not having reported the alleged abuse sooner, given the fact that the report had been based on a suspicion which had first arisen in 1991. Further, he requested that D, now aged 14, be heard before the court.
15.  At the hearing on 28 September 1998 he denied the charges and maintained that D should be heard either before the court or elsewhere. The court refused the request, considering that the hearing of the girl before the court would not be in her best interests having regard to the time that had passed since the alleged offences and the therapy that she had received. The court made reference to the above written medical opinion prepared by Dr S.V.
16.  The court received oral evidence from the social welfare director L.K., the applicant mother, Dr S.V., E.V, a psychologist, Dr H-O.P., a psychiatrist, A.V., a social worker, D's substitute mother and D's teacher. E.V. gave evidence to the effect that she had heard about the events from D herself. D had said that her father had tickled her genital area and that she had tickled his penis which had risen following which he had urinated on her hand. She had also said that he had put his penis in her mouth and kept it there for a long time until he had urinated into her mouth. D had also lain on top of her father and his penis had been on her genital area. Dr H-O.P., L.K. and A.V. testified to having been present when the applicant father had admitted the alleged abuse. None of the witnesses had made any observations on the alleged acts.
17.  The court noted that the evidence produced before it was based on D's statements to the medical personnel of the institution in which she had been treated, and on circumstances that had been observed during the observation. There was no forensic evidence as to the alleged abuse. On the other hand, there was the admission by the applicant father which had seemed authentic and true to the above witnesses. The court concluded that the statements of Dr S.V. and E.V. proved that the applicant father was guilty of the alleged offences. Having regard to the seriousness of the charges, his admission alone did not suffice to prove his guilt. However, it did not lack significance since according to A.V. and L.K. it had been made voluntarily without any pressure having been exercised on him; nor had he been misled.
18.  On 8 October 1998 the District Court convicted the applicant father as charged and sentenced him to a suspended term of one year and two months' imprisonment. He was ordered to pay compensation plus the legal costs of D's representation.
19.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant father appealed, maintaining that D should be heard. He also requested that the National Authority for Medico-legal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättsskyddscentralen för hälsovården) be invited to interview her.
20.  The Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) refused the requests. It however held an oral hearing and received the same oral evidence as had been presented to the lower court. Dr S.V. now testified to having met D some weeks before the Court of Appeal hearing and to having asked her about the alleged abuse. D had replied that her father had not abused her sexually in any way. The Court of Appeal also received oral evidence from the applicant father.
21.  On 1 July 1999 the Court of Appeal amended the District Court's judgment in that it rejected the charge of sexual intercourse with a descendant. It upheld the rest of the lower court's judgment, endorsing its reasoning. It did not comment separately on the testimony of Dr S.V.
22.  On 30 August 1999 the applicant father appealed further, maintaining that D should be heard in particular as she had denied the sexual abuse to Dr S.V. some weeks before the Court of Appeal hearing. He repeated his request that the National Authority for Medico-legal Affairs be invited to interview the girl. He also submitted a letter from D in which she stated that nothing improper had taken place between her and her father.
23.  On 14 December 1999 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) granted leave to appeal insofar as the compensation claims were concerned and received the Social Welfare Board's reply to the appeal.
24.  On 2 May 2000 the Supreme Court invited an expert opinion from the National Authority for Medico-legal Affairs on, inter alia, whether D could be heard before the court. On 12 September 2000 the Authority received an expert statement running to 7 pages from its standing expert, Dr E.R. It also invited an opinion by the psychiatrist who had treated D, Dr S.V. It was received on 26 February 2001. As these opinions were partly contradictory in respect of the question whether D could be heard before the court, the Authority requested, on 5 March 2001, Dr E.R.'s comment on the opinion of Dr S.V. It was received on 28 March 2001. The Authority submitted its opinion to the Supreme Court on 4 April 2001 following which it was communicated to the parties for comment.
25.  On 12 December 2001 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal insofar as the criminal aspects of the case were concerned. As to the compensation claims, it quashed the lower courts' judgments and remitted the case to the District Court as the Social Welfare Board had lacked competence to represent D in the proceedings.
26.  On 14 December 2001 the case was restored to the District Court's case-list.
27.  On 16 September 2002 the court, having held an oral hearing at which it heard D, among others, ordered the applicant father to pay compensation to D in the amount of 20,182 euros plus interest from 4 August 1991.
28.  The applicant father and D appealed. On 24 August 2004 the Court of Appeal, having held a hearing, revoked the lower court's judgment and rejected the claims. In those proceedings D now aged 20 testified that she had never been sexually abused by her father. No one appealed.
29.  Meanwhile, on 10 June 2002 when D reached the age of majority she moved back in with her parents.